Year: 2019

Supposedly, the Palestinians and Iran are the Jew’s worst enemy. Or to be more accurate their respective leadership is. The truth is, the Palestinian and Iranian threats are useful “for internal consumption”. To scare the children, that’s all. The US once used the Soviets the same way.

The USSR lacked food and advanced technology for many decades, so guess who kept them supplied? Their “enemy”, the United States, through the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council (USTEC) and other associations. Tony Sutton in his “National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union” (Arlington House, 1973) went into many of the details. Enemy or not, there was money to be made. He even revealed the U.S. government in 1972 authorized the export to the USSR of the unique, patented micro-ballbearing grinding tools that alone made possible MIRVed nuclear warheads.

Just like tax policy, careful to keep the wealth in the hands of the presently rich (at the given time), foreign policy is above all for the sake of big businessmen. Trade dictates the peace and trade dictates the wars (see “The United Fruit Company“).

This is why all sorts of Israeli businessmen still sell weapons to Iran (yes, indeed) with hush-hush permission. This is why Israel “technically” funds the PLO (or whatever they’re calling it these days). Did you notice how fast Israel acted to free Elchanan Tannenbaum? You and I don’t count. Government is by the rich and for the rich. Always has been, always will be.

The rightists who seek to make military wars “more consistent” are just naive. They aren’t wars at all, but games. Want an example of a real war? What the Israelis are busy prosecuting is a war against the Jews. The bogeymen are poor proxies. It’s a bit harder to see the real war, but it’s true and explains the facts far better.

The State is always at war against its own citizens; real war.

Yes, it is said in the name of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.

Perhaps it’s better to say “Shavua Tov” instead. Are blessings using a nickname (חנון ורחום הגדול הגבור והנורא הנאמן קנא וחזק וכיוצא) also allowed de jure?

Thanks to the reader who sent this highlighted cutout from Mishpacha.

Correction: An earlier version of the Mishpacha article included the wrong image of Rabbi Chaim Klein. The person pictured has requested to clarify he did not author the above article and he takes no position on the question discussed.

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. The Liberal News Chronicle published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians. It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell’s soldiers slashing Irishwomen’s faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the ‘right’ cause. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century, one finds that there was hardly a single year when atrocity stories were not being reported from some part of the world; and yet in not one single case were these atrocities — in Spain, Russia, China, Hungary, Mexico, Amritsar, Smyrna — believed in and disapproved of by the English intelligentsia as a whole. Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.