September 1, 2003

FOR THE GOYIM THEY SING



The topic to be discussed here is so emotionally charged that it needs to be read in sequence lest wrong opinions are formed. I shall, therefore, refrain from using bold print, which would lend itself to quotes taken out of context. About two months ago I came across a book by Haddon Klingberg Jr., Professor of Psychology at North Park University, entitled When Life Calls Out To Us. The Love and Lifework of Viktor and Elly Frankl. The Story behind Man's Search for Meaning. As discussed in War&Mayhem Dr. Frankl, whose lectures on neurology at the Poliklinik I attended in 1948, became a role model not only for my professional life but also in the personal sphere. What impressed me most at the time was not only his exemplary teaching style but that as a Jewish survivor of concentration camps the man exuded only profound humanism without any trace of hate or resentment. Klingberg's book was, therefore, of great interest and I can strongly recommend it to anyone interested in Frankl's lifework.

I had always been puzzled why Frankl had not achieved greater recognition by leading Jewish authorities. Wiesenthal is known by everybody but Frankl's name does not have the same resonance among average persons. As an example of discrimination against Frankl I might mention that he was clearly entitled to the Chairmanship of Vienna's renowned Neuro-Psychiatric University Hospital when the position became vacant in 1949. It went instead to another Jewish neurologist, Hans Hoff, who had spent the war years first in Palestine and then New York. More about Hoff can be found in War&Mayhem. After reading Klingberg's book the reasons for the difference in the treatment meted out to Wiesenthal or Hoff versus Frankl became apparent.

Although not stated in these words, Frankl had committed four cardinal sins in the eyes of the Jewish establishment. One was that he refused to hate the Nazis for what they had personally done to him and his family. Rather than looking backward at past suffering he looked instead forward to the new challenges life had in store. The second sin was that he spoke out against collective guilt, even in 1945, and advocated reconciliation rather than en bloc condemnation of entire groups of people, which he regarded as Nazism in reverse. Individuals who had committed crimes should be punished but the global condemnation of "the Germans" or even "the Nazis," was not appropriate. His was the voice of the physician who examines individual people and tries to find their positive characteristics which can help them to overcome their negative ones and thus lead to more appropriate behavior patterns. This stance is, of course, anathema to politicians and media people who want to first create and then sway "public opinion." The third sin was that his psychotherapeutic treatment method of "Existential Analysis," also referred to as "Logotherapy," (website: http://logotherapy.univie.ac.at) was seen as serious competition for Freudian psychoanalysis, which essentially reduced the human being to a sex driven organism. Frankl saw the soul and its yearning for meaning in life. This is why he called his first book, the manuscript of which was destroyed in Auschwitz, Aerztliche Seelsorge. The title, which is most appropriate in German, defies a succinct translation and the English title The Doctor and the Soul does not capture its essence. It could be rendered as: how the physician can provide care for a patient's soul. In German the word Seelsorge is regarded as the domain of priests and ministers but Frankl broke through this barrier. He said essentially: Yes, priests should do their job, but physicians also have a role to play when they are confronted with patients whose problem is basically a spiritual one. While Freud, the materialist, had derided religion as an illusion, Frankl saw, felt, and acted on the human being's spiritual essence. This simply did not sit well in our "secular society." The fourth sin was that, although Frankl had never renounced his Jewish faith, he had married, in a civil ceremony, a Catholic woman.

For Gentile readers these aspects may all be "so what," but for some influential segments in the Jewish community they are indeed pretty near traitorous. For these sons of Jacob (I deliberately do not call them sons of Isaac because Esau, Isaac's first born, has a decidedly bad name in Jewish religious circles) there still exists a tribal mentality of a beleaguered "us versus them." This brings me to the title of this essay. Frankl was fond of jokes and one of his favorite ones, as quoted from Klingberg's book was, "An old Jewish man who had emigrated to Berlin is walking in the famous park there. Then a bird appeared overhead lets its droppings go and they land right on the old man's hat. He takes off his hat, looks at it, and says, 'For the goyim they are singing.' "

Obviously one laughs at the joke but as Freud told us jokes can have deeper meaning and in this instance it reveals a basically paranoid attitude bred by a history which emphasizes intermittent persecutions in some parts of the world rather than periods of relative well-being. Gentiles, or goyim, as non-Jews are referred to in private Jewish conversation with a connotation that is somewhat akin to the "n word," will never understand the deep trauma some Jews labor under. When Gentiles either ignore it, or are trying to make up for past sins, they tend to merely perpetuate a mind-set which is inherently unhealthy. This is one facet of Jewish life which deserves be recognized and openly discussed.

Paranoid type of thinking exemplified by - because we have been persecuted in the past we are ordained to be persecuted in the future until the Messiah arrives - can be compensated for by a feeling of superiority over others. This combination of mental attitudes is a major contributing factor to the hostility Jews have encountered intermittently throughout history. To understand this very delicate, difficult, but terribly important subject I'd like to discuss first my professional experience with paranoid patients. Paranoia does, in general, not start out with ideas of persecution but with an experience which the individual regards as extremely important and which the rest of the world should share. When others who fail to appreciate that need, either ignore or ridicule the person, the sense of "I am right and the rest of the world is wrong" is born. When the person then not simply retires into his own fantasy land but actively endeavors to recruit others into his belief system he will encounter resistance and at that point active retaliation by society, which does not want to conform to the wishes of the individual, will occur. This is the typical sequence when paranoia is limited to one person. The family steps in, the patient will be taken to a psychiatrist and a treatment course will be instituted. A problem for society at large arises if this particular person is "charismatic," intelligent, intact in all other mental functions and can rally others into his personal belief system. Under those circumstances events are set in motion which have incalculable consequences. The group then feeds on myths of superiority, which are denied by the rest of society. The resultant ill will by society has two consequences. One is the increased cohesion of the in-group in face of actual or perceived danger and the other active and at times violent hostility by the larger overall society. In this way antisemitism was born and this is why it is so difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate.

These thoughts are not purely academic at present, but have very practical consequences which affect the lives of all of us. The state of Israel was created as a reaction to European antisemitism. It was Herzl's, and like-minded others', belief that when the Jews leave Europe and build a prosperous state in Palestine, antisemitism would lose its raison d'être and all the world would then be happy and grateful for the benefits Jews are providing to the world. The fatal flaw (both literally as well as figuratively) in this assumption was the non-recognition of the existence of an indigenous population in Palestine. The slogan under which Zionist colonizers flocked to Palestine in the late 19th and especially early 20th century was "A land without people for people without a land." This is a classic example of how a wrong assumption has to lead to wrong results. People did live there. They were in the vast majority Arabs and they acted exactly in the manner Sultan Abd ul-Hamid II predicted. When Herzl wanted to acquire Palestine for the Jews with the promise of providing financial help to the ailing Ottoman empire the Sultan replied, through a mutual friend, "If Mister Herzl is indeed such a good friend of yours, as you are mine, then advise him not to take even one more step in this matter. I cannot sell a single foot of my land, because it doesn't belong to me, but to my people. My people have fought for this empire with their blood and have fertilized it with their blood. We shall have to cover it again with our blood before one tears it away from us . . . The Jews should save themselves their billions [Milliarden]. If my empire is parceled out, they might get Palestine for free. Only our cadaver can be partitioned. I do not agree to vivisection [Herzl Tagebuch entry of June 19, 1896. Translation is mine]." One can only wonder about how much past as well as future misery might have been avoided had Herzl been able to take this advice to heart and had indeed abandoned his project. History's wars are not foreordained but result from wrong assumptions and the Zionist dream, which is turning into a nightmare for all of us, is just one of them.

But Herzl was obsessed, and he as well as his followers, could not and still cannot, abandon the quest for Eretz Yisrael, which encompasses for some at minimum the current state plus the occupied West Bank and Gaza. The maximalists dream of the restoration of King David's borders, which are actually quite nebulous if one asks historians. The failure of American administrations to recognize this quest, which can bring only further bloodshed, has led us into the current impasse in the Middle East. Under the slogan that we have to fight terrorism and secure the survival of "the only democracy in the Middle East," America has been led into the war with Iraq and if Likud supporters, both here and in Israel, had their way we would also eliminate Syria and Iran as potential threats to Israel. Let me emphasize that the threat to Israel was not the only reason for our invasion of Iraq but, to deny that it was a contributing factor would also be inaccurate.

Now we come to the problem: How can a small nation of six million people, of whom about one million Arabs are partially disenfranchised even within the pre 1967 borders, prosper in the face of ever growing hostility? To answer this question we have to look at how Jewish intellectuals think about themselves and what methods are employed to gain support from inside and outside their own community. As far as self appreciation is concerned I would now like to quote from a few Jewish sources. One is a recent letter I received from the Simon Wiesenthal Center which starts out,

"Dear Friend,

I'm writing you today with news about a frightening trend that is sweeping across the European continent.

Since October of 2000, the beginning of the Palestinian Intifada II, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has been tracking with growing alarm, a dramatic rise in hate rhetoric and hate crimes targeted toward Europe's Jewish population . . . . The situation has grown so serious that Simon Wiesenthal, now 95, told me that 'there is more antisemitism today than we experienced in the 1930's.'" The message is that Jews not only in Israel but also in Europe are in serious and growing danger and must rally to the meet the threat. Financial support for the Wiesenthal Center was requested; as if the problem could be solved with money.

To highlight the threat to Israeli Jews the tax-exempt organization FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East), which advertises in a number of newspapers and magazines, argues vigorously against the creation of a Palestinian state. It is claimed that the state would never remain demilitarized, continue to threaten Israel's very existence, and eventually lead to a nuclear holocaust. One of the "facts" cited in support of this thesis is that a Palestinian state is unjustified "because there are no distinct 'Palestinian' people. The concept of a Palestinian state came about after the Six-Day War in 1967." Well, this is simply untrue, and the writers of FLAME must know it. Palestine was the official name for the country under the British Mandate; ergo the people living there were Palestinians regardless of what religion they professed. The division of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state was first suggested by the Peel Commission in 1937 and officially adopted by the UN in 1947. The argument whether the Arabs living in Palestine were really "Palestinians" reminded me of the story of a an old man in the Sudetenland, "When I was born I lived in Austria, then I lived in Czechoslovakia, then I lived in Germany, now I live in Czechoslovakia again and I have never even set foot outside of my village." Since the FLAME article reflects the current Israeli government's position it is obvious that the "road map" never had a ghost of a chance to succeed. Regardless of what the Palestinians did or did not do the will from the Israeli side simply wasn't there. In spite of the so called truce Israeli settlements continued to be expanded and the construction of the "fence" which in part separates Palestinian farmers' villages from their fields was started. All of this is done in the name of security for Israel, which reinforces the basically paranoid mind-set into which Americans are now being recruited.

But as mentioned earlier for paranoia to flourish it needs not only the threat of persecution but also a sense of entitlement. In order to understand this aspect one has to read Jewish literature and the book by Max I. Dimont The Indestructible Jews. An action-packed journey through 4,000 years of history, is a good example. He divides Jewish history into three acts. The first one, "The Manifest Destiny", covers the era from the patriarchs to Jesus; the second, "The Existential Dilemma" deals with the period from Jesus to Ben-Gurion, and the third act, "The Paradox of the Diaspora" is being played out now. Dimont believes, and he may well be right, that the Jews are what he called "the surfboard riders of history." They attach themselves to one rising civilization infuse it with their belief system and when that civilization is in decay, they catch the next wave. For this reason they need both the Diaspora as well as the state of Israel as its spiritual center. Let me now quote some key passages to get a flavor of Dimont's thinking.

"The Jews will not worship idols, be they religious, secular or scientific. A consequence . . . is that of the Jews as skeptics, who never accept the say-so of anyone not even God . . . They are a people of law. They are a people born with a pontificating finger, moral busybodies, who are forever telling the world what is right and what is wrong . . . Finally, Jews have always supported education and general welfare. . . the Jewish ethic rallies round the flag that symbolizes what is noblest in man."

In regard to Jewish Diaspora Dimont wrote,

"Each Diaspora interaction enriched Judaism, giving it a new virility, verisimilitude, and a broader spectrum of intellectual activity. But its inner core always remained distinctly Jewish. No matter how much the Jews borrowed, they did not doubt the superiority of Judaism itself. . . . With each new challenge, with each successive enlargement of the Diaspora Judaic ideas were indelibly imprinted on each host civilization. This 'Judaization' of the world that has imperceptibly coursed below the surface of history in our second act is destined to surface in the third."

Dimont then asks, "Will it be the destiny of the Jews in the third act to proselytize the universalistic aspect of their faith to a diasporized world sick unto its scientific soul, ready, perhaps, at last, to accept their prophetic message? Is it possible that Christianity, Mohammedanism, communism have been but stepping stones to make it easier for diasporized man to cross over into a universal Judaism? . . . . At the end of the first act, Jesus proclaimed a religious brotherhood of man in heaven. At the end of the second act Marx proclaimed an economic brotherhood for man on earth. What will be proclaimed at the end of the third act? Will the Christian Jesus reappear as promised by the Gospels, or will a Jewish Messiah appear as promised by the prophets? Thus in the third act, man himself will be faced with an existential choice. Should he choose the Christian paradise in heaven, with an avenging Jesus returning to end mankind with a Judgment day, or should he choose the Jewish paradise on earth brought about by a messianic concept of brotherhood?"

Dimont then addresses the question,

"How could these forthright Zionist agnostics [who had settled in Palestine prior to nationhood] claim to be heirs to the messianic ideal? How could they deny God and yet proclaim the chosenness of the Jewish people? Perhaps Ben-Gurion best resolved this dilemma when he said

'My concept of the messianic idea is not a metaphysical but a social-cultural one . . . I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority, in our capacity to serve to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race . . . "

Dimont concluded,

"Perhaps this is why God chose the Jews, if there was indeed divine choice. He could count on them. As one scholar so perceptively summed it up - 'In Judaism, God turned to man and said, 'Finish the job for me,' and man said 'I will.' In Christianity, man returns to God and says 'I cannot do it, finish the work for me,' and God says 'I will'. In essence the Christians are unable to fulfill the task assigned to man by God, and slough the job back to God via Jesus. . . . As long as the Jews stick to the ethics of the Torah and the ideology of the Prophets they will remain indestructible. When all men embrace this ethic and ideology, they, too, will symbolically become 'Jewish.' There will then be only man."


I have quoted so extensively from my 1973 edition because these are the ideas over which the current war in Israel as well as the more general war with Islamic fundamentalists are fought over. Let me highlight just a few points. Dimont tells us that the Jewish vision of morality is the only correct one. It has to be pushed onto the rest of the world, which has to be "Judaized." "Diasporized man" is a neologism and I doubt that people of other nations or religions feel that they live in a "Diaspora." A "universal Judaism" is an oxymoron. Judaism, strictly speaking, is a set of laws given by Moses to the Israelites to form a nation which sets them apart from the goyim! The messianic concept of brotherhood was always limited to members of the twelve tribes. When one reads the Old Testament carefully, Gentiles could join but would have to undergo conversion to Jewish law, which for males includes circumcision. The expansion of some aspects of Judaism into a universal religion was due to Jesus martyrdom and mainly St. Paul's missionary trips to the Gentiles. It is they who should get the credit. I have discussed these aspects in my next book Understanding Jesus. A Medical Perspective which, as of today, is still looking for a publisher. When it comes to "moral and intellectual superiority," I thought that this concept of the inherent superiority of one racial or ethnic group over another was buried with Hitler in the bunker, but apparently not. The ethics of the Torah and the prophets, which should be accepted by the rest of the world is also a catch phrase without meaning but mindlessly repeated by numerous Jewish authors. The Torah is not only the first five books attributed to Moses in the Old Testament but the entire body of Jewish written and oral law, which most Jews do not adhere to anyway. The prophets were nationalists who showered doom and gloom upon all their neighbors as well as the wayward Jews. This vision hardly lends itself to a peaceful future. Thus to call upon the world to adopt the "universal aspects of the Torah and the prophets," but in the same breath deny the existence of God strikes me as less than honest. Furthermore the truly universal aspects of the moral law antedated Moses. It would be most wholesome for writers like Dimont to read Pritchard’s The Ancient Near East. This collection of documents from the beginnings of our civilization ought to remove chauvinistic preconceptions and provide respect for those ancients upon whose words the laws and wisdom literature of the Bible was based. A great many of the commandments the Israelites were ordered to adhere to in the Torah were actually literally copied from Hammurabi's [ca. 1728-1686] laws. He received them likewise from his god whose name was, however, Shamash not Yahweh.

The statement that "there will then be only man," is a concept not even religious Jews subscribe to and an effort to turn the entire world into atheists must create resistance. Yet it is precisely these ideas which are being pushed in America and which the world receives through television. These fuel the hatred not only against Jews but Americans as their protector. Small wonder that some Muslims will say in so many words: not over my dead body.

Lest one assumes that it is merely one author who harbors and promotes these thoughts one needs only to read Jewish newspapers, magazines, as well as a variety of books by Jewish authors. Dimont, and those who think like him, also have a profoundly distorted view of what Christianity is, or should be, all about. Just as many Christians, especially Evangelicals, harbor an idealized view of Judaism and the state of Israel which has no counterpart in the real world. Thus Dimont's writings are typical for a paranoid mind-set which consists of an exaggerated sense of self importance masking the unspoken fear of the "avenging Jesus." The dead Jesus and the possibility that God might exist haunt some Jewish intellectuals and this is the reason why not only Christianity but all religions have to disappear. The claim that Jews as a whole rally to the flag which stands for "what is noblest in man" also sounds quite hollow when one considers Jewish behavior vis a vis their Arab citizens and to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Security will never be achieved by brutality and each escalating reprisal will merely lead to more bloodshed. There are indeed some responsible Jews in Israel as well as here who argue against these policies but they are the proverbial voice in the wilderness which gets drowned out by the clamor for revenge and "security."

On the other hand there is one point where I have to agree with Dimont. The "Judaization" of America has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of Jewish immigrants after WWII. Even our foreign policy is currently no longer in the hands of the professionals in the State Department but is run by a small civilian neoconservative group in the Pentagon who turn Israel's goals into those of America. This is the tragedy of the beginning century because the American people, by and large, do not realize that they are being used for ulterior motives.

We now have to address the question how is Dimont's vision to be accomplished. The answer is already partly in his book and in last month's essay on "The Niger Forgery". "Thou shalt wage war by deception" is not limited to the Mossad; it now permeates all aspects of our society. To get by with deceptions the responsible officials can either lie or stonewall, by not releasing pertinent documents and Congress' as well as the media's acquiescence. Even the minutes of Vice President Cheney's meeting on energy policy in early 2001 are not allowed to be released because they would, in all probability, throw a rather different light on the administration's response to the 9/11 disaster. While secrecy and outright lies are one mechanism, the spread of fear by exaggerating possible dangers is the other, as exemplified by the rhetoric which led up to the Iraq invasion, and expressed also in the letter from the Wiesenthal Center as well as in FLAME.

One year ago I wrote in the essay "October Surprise?" that I had been told in August by a person who was privy to administration information that the decision for war had already been made and that our efforts to convince Senator Bennett to act as a voice of reason in Washington were fruitless. I had no possibility at that time to verify the information but corroboration came in an article from The Guardian. The British have appointed an independent commission under Lord Hutton to examine the recent suspicious death of Dr. Kelly who was the country's foremost expert on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Guardian wrote in its August 23, 2003 edition under the headline, "Emails show how No 10 constructed case for war," that Tony Blair was told on September 8, 2002 by President Bush at Camp David that the invasion of Iraq had been decided on. It was Blair's job to make the British people come on board and the flurry of e-mails under discussion was to provide the justification for the war rather than an attempt to avoid it. "The sense that the decision had been made is also echoed by the former cabinet minister, Clare Short, who opposed the war and who told the Commons foreign affairs committee that she had been informed by three senior people - believed to be another cabinet minister, an MI6 chief and a top civil servant - that war was inevitable. One of them told her to stop fretting because it could not be stopped."

Evidence how the American people were hoodwinked into the war can also be found on the Internet in an interview with Ray Mc Govern by Will Pitt on June 26,2003 (www.truthout.org). McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, had served under seven Presidents beginning with Kennedy and ending with Bush I. His job was to brief the highest administration officials, and as he relates the motto of the CIA, chiseled in marble at the entrance, is "You Shall Know The Truth, And the Truth Shall Set You Free." In those days CIA officers did indeed present truthful analysis results to the policy makers and were not interfered with, regardless whether a given administration liked or did not like the data. The CIA was an independent agency which could go after facts. This changed profoundly in the run-up towards the Iraq war. President Bush II had ignored the briefing on August 6, 2001 which had its title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US." Condoleeza Rice, our National Security Advisor, admitted after September 11 that she had not looked at her predecessor's, Sandy Berger, file on terrorism. As she said, "It was still on my desk when September 11 happened." According to McGovern the driving force in the exaggeration of the potential Iraqi threat, which justified the invasion of the country, was the Vice President as well as the civilians in the Pentagon especially Wolfowitz. Mc Govern, also told his interviewer, "When the decision was made last summer that we will have a war against Iraq, they were casting about. You'll recall White House Chief of Staff Andy Carr saying you don't market a new product in August. The big blast off was Cheney's speech in Nashville, I think it was Nashville anyway, on August 26. He said Iraq was seeking materials for its nuclear program. That set the tone right there."

This is what seems to really have happened, the tragedy of 9/11 was used as the excuse to pursue other goals by manufacturing non-existent threats against the U.S., supposedly emanating from Saddam Hussein. Fear had to spread and our moral superiority over the rest of the world had to be proclaimed. This policy has now committed us to an indefinite guerilla war in Afghanistan as well as Iraq and possibly other places around the world. Although the CIA as well as the FBI analysts in the field had done their level best to detect and warn of imminent dangers they were ignored by their higher-ups. Problems of this type will neither be solved by an additional layer of bureaucracy called Homeland Security Office nor by a Patriot Act which allows the government to snoop on its citizens at will.

What can be done now? First of all the press and television have to demand a truly independent investigation of the events leading up to 9-11-2001 and the administration's response to it. Public pressure for an accounting is needed before Congress will react and take the appropriate steps. Senators and Representatives have re-election on their minds and will not act unless the public is truly aroused and it is the media's job to keep government as honest as possible. Stonewalling by the President as well as the Vice President in regard to crucial documents should be condemned and brought before the judiciary. If judicial orders are then denied on grounds of "national security" the responsible people should be held in contempt. Nothing but the disclosure of the full truth will ever get us out of this quandary we have gotten into during the past two years. Our national security is not served by secrecy but only by a fully informed citizenry.

As far as Iraq is concerned the predictions about the consequences of this invasion, which have been made during the past year in these pages, have sadly come true. The guerilla war in Iraq against everyone who cooperates with Americans, as urged by bin-Laden in his tape recorded message prior to our invasion, is now also a reality. I presented excerpts in the March, 2003 essay "From Homo Sapiens to the Naked Ape." The most recent highlights are the tragic attacks on the UN headquarters and even the most revered Shiite mosque in Najaf. Ayatollah Mohammed Baquir al-Hakim had advocated accommodation with the infidels and this was not to be condoned. Attacks upon the Kurds are likely to be in the offing next. At this late stage everybody in the US now wants the UN to assume a greater role. But this cannot be achieved in the way Charles Krauthammer wants it. The headline of his essay on the last page of Time September 1, 2003 was, "Help Wanted. Why America needs to lean hard on its allies to lend a hand in Iraq." This reflects precisely the sense of arrogance which is discussed above. First we tell the world that regardless of what they want we will go it alone, and when that didn't quite work out as envisioned they should come and bail us out. But we intend to keep the major contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq and the anticipated future profits. People who think this way forget that our allies are not our servants, they are free people and the scenario as outlined above is not likely to find their approval. Only when we demonstrate that we are willing for them to share not only burdens but also rewards is help likely to be forthcoming.

To the Jewish people and their sympathizers I suggest that they take the contents of Whither Zionism? and of "The Neocons' Leviathan," which was published here in April of this year, to heart. Please recognize the failure of the neoncons, as well as Likud's, policies and conduct yourselves according to the high ethical principles your writers proclaim. Place yourself into the shoes of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and consider what the world-wide Jewish reaction would be if the roles were reversed and Palestinians treated Jews the way Palestinians are being treated now. Remember that the Golden Rule works both ways, "You will be treated the way you treat others." Realize, furthermore, that when a total of about 14 million people want to convert a world of more than 6 billion to their belief system - be it religious or secular - it cannot work; it must backfire. Complaining about antisemitism, spreading further fear and drumming up money will not help.

The answer to the challenges ahead is honesty and conduct commensurate with universal, rather than parochial, human values. Goethe has summed them up in, "Edel sei der Mensch, hilfreich und gut." The human being's task is to be noble, helpful and good! This is everyone's duty and not limited to a given religious, national or ethnic group. Frankl, a Jew, has shown that it can be done even when a tremendous personal loss has taken place. So have other Jews both here and in Israel. But misguided Jewish zealots, who have converted some Gentiles to their cause, are dragging us down the wrong road. It will be up to individual responsible Jews to publicly and vociferously speak out against this type of "leadership" because goyim cannot do this job for them.
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!