Home Search The Shadow of Zog (Exegesis of Besson) Israel Shamir

In Luc Besson's delightful film, The Fifth Element (with perfect Milla Jovovich and supreme Bruce Willis), an absolutely evil force, the Shadow, Messenger of Death, comes from Outer Space to destroy human life on our planet. It is impervious to bombs and missiles, and regardless of what people do, it closes in, and its cover ever thicker upon the earth. Yet in order to succeed the Shadow needs some human help. Who will, for personal profit, assist the satanic Shadow in his quest to destroy our Mother Earth? In the best tongue-in-cheek tradition of Swift, Besson gave the monstrous volunteer, that servant-of-profit, a scary name: Zog. In Luc Besson's delightful film,(with perfect Milla Jovovich and supreme Bruce Willis), an absolutely evil force, the Shadow, Messenger of Death, comes from Outer Space to destroy human life on our planet. It is impervious to bombs and missiles, and regardless of what people do, it closes in, and its cover ever thicker upon the earth. Yet in order to succeed the Shadow needs some human help. Who will, for personal profit, assist the satanic Shadow in his quest to destroy our Mother Earth? In the best tongue-in-cheek tradition of Swift, Besson gave the monstrous volunteer, that servant-of-profit, a scary name: Zog. The name of pre-war Albanian King, Zog is one of a few words that kick the fearsome Thought Police of ADL into action, activate FBI like Anthrax, and can send IDF assassins and ARA punks in hot pursuit, for this king – like the Jewish God - does not like his name to be mentioned. This name came back to me with the impending instalment of General Jay Garner as Viceroy of Iraq. Garner received his credentials from the bloody hands of Ariel Sharon: he supported the killing of the Palestinians by signing, in October 2000, a letter that began: "We believe that the Israel Defence Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority."[1] The letter was launched by JINSA,[2] "the major link of the Israel lobby, the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs", as defined by Michael Lind of the New Statesman, or "another thinly disguised Israeli espionage and recruiting front", according to Washington observer Jeffrey Steinberg of EIR.[3] Signing the letter was a good move on General Garner's part: it will give him the rule of Iraq. However, he will not have too much money at his disposal. Despite ‘NO WAR FOR OIL' slogans, Iraqi oil won't make Americans rich. Iraq has a huge national debt - $70 billion to Russia alone - and the Occupation Regime will have to cough it up. Debt to France is over $30 billion, and it will have to be paid. On top of this, the US Occupation Administration will have to spend considerable amounts of money on repairing the Iraqi infrastructure, destroyed by sanctions and war, before paying one cent of commission to Dick Cheney and his company. No, this war was not fought for the imperial interests of the US or for its mammoth oil companies. As the head of the Occupation Administration, Jay Garner's task is to create a new Iraq, friendly to Israel. The Jerusalem Post, a hard-line Zionist daily published by Conrad Black, friend of Pinochet and Sharon, carried an interview[4] with one of his wannabe Quislings, Ahmad Chalabi's right hand man, Musawi. "Musawi talks enthusiastically of his hopes for the closest possible ties with Israel. There will be no place for Palestinians in the new Iraq, for the large Palestinian community is regarded by INC leaders (and presumably by their Zionist instructors) as a loathsome fifth column. Instead, an 'arc of peace'; would run from Turkey, through Iraq and Jordan to Israel, creating a new fulcrum in the Middle East." The Occupation Regime in Iraq was installed by the US army in the interests of Zionists, and it may be rightly called ZOG, Zionist Occupation Government if anything. However, this ZOG is also a Zog, a servant of Darkness and Annihilation, for its first step was the destruction of Baghdad's libraries and museums. A scholar of Zionism, Joachim Martillo, wrote: "Zionism has long taken a position of stripping target populations of their cultural heritage and turning them into clay[5] so that they can be remoulded in conformance with Zionist ideology". My learned friend is right. This week I took myself to a lonely hill near Mesecha, a small village in the heart of Biblical Israel, where a few young ISM activists and villagers helplessly watched the Caterpillar machines uprooting olive trees, smashing lupines, devouring this unique Biblical landscape, home and cradle of the people of Palestine. They did not dare step out in front of the machines, for the American volunteer Rachel Corrie was murdered in similar circumstances, to the deafening sound of silence from Washington. Jeffrey Blankfort, the analyst from California, had good reason for calling Washington "the Zionists' Most Important Occupied Territory".[6] Thus, the burned manuscripts of Baghdad and uprooted olive trees of Mesecha lead to Zog … and to ZOG. This homonymy points to a telling semantic concurrence; as Kuang-Ming Wu said in The Butterfly as Companion: "Words of a sound flock together in sense; like sound, like sense".[7] Thus witty Luc Besson, who borrowed the idea of the Five Elements from Socrates, gave us a lesson: "ZOG is Zog". II For a while, the Jewish establishment tried to deny its direct involvement in the Third World War. They furiously rejected references to high and mighty Jews pushing for war as, (you guessed it) "antisemitism". But eventually the denial wall was broken, and in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the culprits, a "band of 20-30 Jewish intellectuals", the Neo-Cons, admitted they did it. Afterwards, Michael Lind summarised their powerful positions in the New Statesman, while my countryman Gabriel Ash optimistically predicted: "In a couple of months, when the role of the Zionists in the war will become widely known, The New York Times will publish an editorial sheepishly bemoaning the way some Pentagon officials have let their personal views influence U.S. policy".[8] The problem is, the US people have no way out of the Zionist takeover. While Neo-Cons and Right-wingers are guilty of starting World War Three, of introducing Fascist measures against the American population, of premeditated aggression against sovereign Iraq and of unrestrained support for the racist Jewish State, it would be mistake to leave the buck resting with them. Michael Moore's philippics against President Bush are convincing only up to a point, for in his bestselling book, The Stupid White Men, he regrets that Al Gore was not allowed to enjoy the victory that was his by rights. But if Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman were the White House incumbents now, the US Marines would be in Baghdad nevertheless, the National Library of Iraq and Iraqi museums would still have been looted, and the olive trees of Mesecha uprooted and the flow of American cash to Israel would be continuing unabated. Every publicist, every internet user in America and Europe knows by now that the ‘only superpower' was taken over by the Likudniks, the supporters of the right-wing Likud and its bloody leader General Sharon. The team of Bush and Sharon, or BuSharon, in internet parlance, horrifies the right-minded. But is there an alternative in American politics? Al Gore was a ‘hand-picked and chosen disciple of Podhoretz' the Zionist, Lieberman is a devoted Zionist. Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, ‘has a Jewish wife, and both his children, 17-year-old Paul and 18-year-old Anne, have chosen to identify as Jews', we were informed by JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Assn called The Global News Service of the Jewish People. Kerry ‘discovered his Jewish roots', and Kucinich told the Jewish newspaper Forward that he "observes kashrut,[9] has an ex-Israeli girlfriend and knows most of the Haggadah (Passover narrative) by heart". Apparently, the forthcoming elections in the US (as the previous ones) are the elections for the front figure of Zionist-led America. Left Zionists or Right Zionists - that is the only choice for Americans, and, alas, for the whole world. Why did it come to pass? We can find an answer in a short and sincere piece by Eric Alterman,[10] a good Leftist, a journalist with the anti-war Nation. He admits freely: "My own dual loyalties -- there, I admitted it -- were drilled into me by my parents, my grandparents, my Hebrew school teachers and my rabbis, not to mention Israeli teen-tour leaders and AIPAC college representatives. Whose interests come for me first, America's or Israel's? I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once in a while, I'm going to go with what's best for Israel". Bear in mind: while the right-wing Jews were always shamelessly chauvinist, the left kept up a universalist appearance. If that is a voluntary admission of a progressive left-wing journalist, you can easily guess what's on the mind of the average American Jew. As an Israeli, I should be happy that millions of American Jews stand for me. However, ‘Israel' in Alterman's confession stands for ‘the People of Israel', ‘the Jews', not for the Middle Eastern State of Israel. If Alterman does not mind robbing his fellow Americans of their hard earned cash in order to sustain Israeli occupation (as he freely admits), he is probably ready to go much further for the sake of his own community, American Jewry. And this community is managed and represented by – not by the ostracised Noam Chomsky, but by an extremely unpleasant bunch of billionaires, media lords and warmongers. If Alterman were the only Jew in the media, one would be able to dismiss his self-admitted bias as the normal influence of an important community. If Jews in the media constituted only 3% as their share in the general population, Alterman's position would be affordable. But their share in the top echelon of the media is in double digits; according to some sources it approaches 60%. Jeff Blankfort writes, "Ardently pro-Israel American Jews are in positions of unprecedented influence within the United States and have assumed or been given decision making positions over virtually every segment of our culture and body politic". And he quotes Benjamin Ginsberg's "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State": "Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times". Is it a conspiracy of Jews to steal the Republic? No, no conspiracy is necessary. In Jules Verne's juvenile novel, Children of Captain Grant, a villain leads the captain's ship astray by placing a magnet brick beneath the compass. The magnet does not conspire: it constrains the compass. The sheer mass of self-involved Jews in the media acts in a similar way and draws the superpower off its normal course. For the media is the nerve system of a modern state. Modern democracy in practice in a very complicated society can be compared to a sophisticated computer. Its machinery can function successfully on one condition: there is a free flow of information across the system. While every input is instinctively checked and sieved on one criterion, whether it is good for Jews, it is not odd that the machine produces such freak output as ‘revenge on Babylon for its destruction of Jerusalem in BC 586.[11] Indeed, in long-gone 1948 the first ruler of Israel, David Ben Gurion, promised: "We shall mete historic vengeance to Assyria, Aram and Egypt". Now it comes to pass, as Iraq, Syria and Egypt are targeted by Zog. Thus, concentration of Jews in the media created the distortion. A takeover of every other part of industry or trade would be noticed and reported in the media; but there is no remedy for media takeover. Discussion of this unbearable situation is further stifled by the ‘political correctness' taboo. PC has its good sides, for it made life easier for a lone outsider. However, this very good and useful device has its limits of application. Otherwise, it could be used to defend South African apartheid, or British colonial rule in India. Isn't it anti-white racism to notice that the political power in apartheid South Africa belonged to whites? Surely there are poor and good whites? Gandhi could be condemned as ‘racist', for he ‘noticed' the privileged position of the British in India. By PC logic, a good American should reply to Mahatma: yes, there are some rich and powerful Brits in India, but there are also poor Tommy Atkinses, governesses, honest administrators, writers like Kipling and Orwell. On the other hand, there are powerful and rich Rajas, important Brahmins. How do you dare, sir, to demand ‘de-colonisation'! This is sheer anti-English racism! An old Indian Air Force officer Joe Thomas actually reminded that, "while the population of the US today is approximately the same as the population of India a century ago, the British in India never numbered more than 50,000 and still ruled India. They did not rule India by force but by dominating Indian discourse. Indians fought for the British and put down rebellions. During the two world wars, millions of Indians fought as volunteers for Britain. If such a tiny group could control India, then it is not strange that 100 times that number can influence the United States". In no way should we embrace racism. Au contraire, the anti-racist fervour of America should be turned against the Jewish racists - Elliott Abrams, Deborah Lipstadt and others of their ilk - who publish treatises comparing intermarriage with a holocaust. It should be turned against the Wolfowitz Cabal who push for racist war in the Middle East for the sake of the racist Jewish state. It should be turned against media owners who employ disproportionate numbers of Jews and thus discriminate against non-Jewish Americans. It should be turned against the church leaders who agreed to the racist notion that Jews are the only people in the world who do not need to be baptised. It should be turned against the Jewish/non-Jewish discrimination; for the present situation when a goy killer of Klinghoffer the Jew is hunted by the CIA, but the Jewish killer of Rachel Corrie goes scot-free is perversion of natural justice. Jewish racism should be confronted; otherwise America will forever have to choose between Likud and Meretz on its way to Armageddon. Jewish dominance in the media should be redressed, among other measures, by separating advertising and media. Advertising media shouldn't carry news or articles, and non-advertising media should be forbidden to carry advertising. Commercial advertising in the general media was (according to Werner Sombart) an 18th century Jewish invention. Apparently that was ‘good for Jews', but not for society in general, as it turned the media away from readers towards advertisers. The separation could be enforced by banning all forms of media and business interaction, like we ban all interaction of police and business. The media is more important than police for the safety of society. It should be free from undue influences. Media is the compass of society. It is necessary to remove the magnet from its vicinity, in order that the good ship of our society sail smoothly. III Such a concentration of any minority group (be it Korean or Mormon) in the media would be perilous. However, the concentration of Jews has its specifics, for the Jews profess a different, non-Christian, or even anti-Christian faith. Your average Jewish editor or media lord is distinctly unhappy whenever he encounters a reference to Christ or His Blessed Mother, for their very names are subject to strong and explicit taboo in his culture. At best, he will try to balance it with a pro-Judaic piece or reference. If Christian Americans were to refer often to Christ, the frequency of Judaic references would grow also, disproportionately to the Jewish share in the population. In our terms, ‘the magnet brick of Jews-in-discourse has turned the American boat towards forms of worship more palatable for Jews'. At this moment many enlightened readers' interest begins to wane. If Goebbels' hand automatically reached for his [Robert?] Browning at the word ‘culture', modern Western man is conditioned to seek the Delete button at the name of Christ. However, we shall try your patience with an even more severe test and bring in the rich word ‘Metaphysics'. Young drivers often disregard manufacturers' advice and use unsuitable oil for their engines. Others use unsuitable fuel. They say: ‘my car functions anyway, so why I should pay more?' Terms such as ‘compression' and ‘ignition' sound like Mumbo-Jumbo to our young driver: he has never seen them. Only after few unpleasant experiences is a driver is convinced that invisible compression is a perfectly real phenomenon that can manifest itself as sudden breakdown on the turnpike. Metaphysics is exactly that: a hidden but perfectly real force within the engine of our civilisation. M. Jourdain of Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme was amazed that unbeknownst to himself he had spoken prose all his life. We are equally amazed to learn that we apply some metaphysical categories in our daily life. Indeed, our treatment of our neighbours, our social behaviour depends on such Mumbo Jumbo words as ‘relationship of Man and God'. The Jewish concept of the Man-to-God relationship is metaphysically different from the (say) Catholic one, as different as diesel fuel and carburettor fuel. The prominence of Jews in Western discourse causes the same sort of trouble that you would experience if you were to refuel your diesel car with petrol. The Jewish faith as practiced by observant Jews might contain many positive ideas shared by other religions, It also borrowed a lot from other religious systems: for instance, sayings of Christ were imported into Mishna and ascribed to Hillel the Elder (according to Niebuhr). However, it is based on troublesome metaphysics, and metaphysical level survives even the present low level of Jewish religiosity. According to its teaching, the One and Only God created This One and Only World, and remained totally separated from the World. It is stressed by the Cabalist term Zimzum, Contracting Divinity; which holds that God's withdrawal from the meta-world leaves some ‘meta-space' to the Material World. God-less World is the necessary partner of Other-Worldly God. Thus the immanent World is cruel and ruthless, a place of eternal warfare, while God is transcendental and unreachable. ‘There are no prophets', ‘God can not intervene in our decisions', ‘the Law is given to us and God can't change it' – these maxims effectively create a Godless world. Sure, God exists, but he does not manifest Himself. In Christian faith, Christ and His Mother bridged the World-God divide by His Incarnation, and brought in Compassion and Mercy. Since then, this World is full of the Light of Christ that is a Divine Light. People became brothers-in-Christ, His soul unites them, and an offence against a fellow man is also offence against Christ. (I describe the ideal, paradigmatic metaphysics of Christian faith, as different from reality as the scheme of the engine in your manual differs from the real engine of your five-year-old car). In the Godless world of Jewish metaphysics there was an island of light, [the People of] Israel, crowned by the Torah. ‘Israel' of the Jews corresponds to ‘Christ' of the Christians. The relationship between the people of Israel and themselves is brotherly, for they are one family (descendents of Jacob), and they recognise this spark of light in each other. It is apparently similar to the brotherhood-in-Christ, but metaphysically quite different, for while (in Christian metaphysics) every son of Adam and Eve is entitled to the Light of Christ, in Jewish metaphysics other people, non-Israel, are absolutely God-less, all ‘thinking beast'. In some esoteric Jewish teachings non-Jews are denied even their descent from Adam. There is no way to transform a non-Israel to a member of Israel, for Jewish conversion is but the correction of an error: certain Israelite was by mistake born into a non-Israelite family, and his conversion is but the public recognition of this error. (Indeed, there is a good real-life example, provided by two converts, Jennifer and Andrew. Jennifer converted, and moved into Gaza to defend the Palestinian cause. Andrew continued after his conversion to defend Jews and Jewish terror in Palestine on every Internet forum. I have to agree with the Rabbis: Jennifer failed to convert because she was born with a Christian soul, while Andrew was born a Jew, and conversion just authorised it.) Thus difference between ‘ours' and ‘theirs', ‘insider' and ‘outsider' in Judaism is much more rigidly drawn than in other major religions (pace Zoroastrians, another fossil, in Toynbee's terminology, that happily remained a sleeping fossil) as non-Jews are absolutely profane while Jews are holy. A non-Jew who describes a world without God is not too wrong, from the Jewish point of view, for the non-Jew has no connection to God. Such a non-Jew is preferable to a Christian, for the Christian claims he is the equal of Jews, and that is sacrilege for a Jew. That is why prominent Jews in the media and universities outwardly support the doctrine of religious indifference or atheistic materialism. ‘All religions are the same', or ‘religion is not important' or ‘religion is a personal matter of an individual', or ‘nobody has seen God' are equal to saying ‘all fuels are the same', ‘fuel makes no difference', or ‘nobody has seen compression'. Alexander Dugin,[12] a contemporary Russian Traditionalist philosopher, a follower of Rene Guenon, traced the original fault of Jewish metaphysics to its ‘extreme Creationism', the idea of One and Only God (monotheism) that created totally separate One and Only World (monocosmism) ex nihilo (out of nothing). One could dismiss Dugin's view by claiming that Creation is also a part and parcel of Christian dogma. However, in Christian metaphysics the equivalent of Creation is Incarnation, fruit of sacral union of the Godhead and mortal woman, while pre-history described in the Old Testament is effectively excluded from consideration or is re-interpreted through the concept of Pre-figuration. The OT could not be accepted or rejected in toto by the Early Christians, for the wonderful codex of the native Ancient Palestinian poetry, liturgy, metaphysics, religion and tradition, was heavily edited by the immigrant Soferim (the spiritual precursors of Pharisees). Memory of this editing was preserved in the Semitic world, and it was referred to by the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him. Old Palestinian tradition was much more holistic, and its gods El and his spouse Ashera were integrated into environment as the rain-sending Heaven of Palestine and the fruit-giving Land of Palestine. Together, they are the equivalent of ‘God' of OT, and the Gospel preserved for us the last words of Jesus on the Cross. He called to El, not to Yahve. The Old Palestinian tradition and its younger gods, Baal the Homeless ("Birds have nests, but Son of God has no home"), who defied Death, was killed and Resurrected, and Anath the Virgin, were perfect pre-figurations of the Gospel, certainly better ones than those offered by Pharisees. (A materialist would say that the Palestinian tradition had influenced the Gospel writers and the founders of the Christianity.) Early Christians were aware of the problematic qualities of the OT, but they had no tools to undo the Soferim-Pharisees' editing and restore the Palestinian text. The Pharisees (for the Pharisee teaching won the day among Jews) took over the Palestinian heritage as surely as King Macbeth took over Scotland. (The Jewish editing of the Bible did not stop to this very day: CE Carlson[13] and Steven Sizer[14] noted that Scofield Reference Bible published by Oxford University Press calls for adoration of Israel in more explicit way with each new edition being published: "With limitless advertising and promotion, it became the best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90 years. Scofield chose not to change the text of the King James Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom of about half of the pages, and his notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together as though they were written at the same time by the same people". First edition was arranged and financed by "Samuel Untermeyer, a New York lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and most powerful Zionists in America". This Zionist edition of the OT explains a lot of the strange phenomenon of Christian Zionism.) The Early Christians decided to put far away the OT (the Church forbade laymen to read it) but not too far. They relied upon St Paul (and later St Augustine) that there is a way to re-interpret the OT in the Christian spirit. It is true, Mein Kampf can be re-interpreted as a Zionist text, and it was actually done by some Zionist Nazi antisemites from Adolf Eichmann to Donald Pauly, but I shall be first to admit this is forced interpretation. It would be better to restore the Palestinian reading of OT but it could not be done easily in the reality of ideological struggle for souls of Jews, against the Pharisee (and their heirs Tannaim) establishment. The great Russian historian Leon Gumilev[15] asserted that the OT remained as a latent part of Christian tradition for historic reasons: in the First-to-Fourth-Centuries' ideological warfare between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism, the OT was used by the Church Fathers as a handy weapon against some esoteric concepts of the Gnostics. The unbridled Gnostics considered the Material world being evil, and were able to conceptualise the world as a place as hostile to people as was the world of the defeated Jewish paradigm. Indeed, late resurrections of Gnosticism (Albigensian, Manichaean, Cathari heresies) proved its social danger. The teaching of Evil World would effectively extinguish all life on the planet. However, the sharp sword of the OT did not want to sleep in its sheath. Massive import of Old Testament ideas by Protestants revitalised the submerged Jewish paradigm and brought in the extermination of Native Americans, ‘the Canaanites of the New Promised Land of the New Chosen People', and eventually the Rise of the Jews to their present pre-eminence in American (and through it, in Western) discourse. (Here is the place to explain that ‘Jew' for this author is an ideological and metaphysical construct, an abbreviation of ‘an adept of the Jewish paradigm'. Nobody has to be a Jew, or indeed a Cathari, or a Dialectical Materialist. The term has no racial meaning, despite the deep inherent racism of the bearers of the Jewish paradigm. A racist-nationalist derivation of a ‘Jew' is Zionist, for Zionists concentrate their attention on the actual historical Jewish People and believe in their unique Chosen-ness. The Universalist derivation of ‘Jew' is ‘Mammonite', for Mammonites accept and universalise the outwardly aspects of the Jewish paradigm. An ‘absolute Jew' is a Zionist (for himself and other Jews) and a Mammonite (towards non-Jews). A non-Jew can be (a mistakenly altruistic) Zionist, or (an egoistic) Mammonite, but by embracing both concepts he turns into a ‘neo-Jew', like Conrad Black, the owner of the bulk of British media. A ‘perfect Christian' is the antithesis of an ‘absolute Jew', for he denies both the ‘divine right' of Jews to suppress non-Jews (in Palestine and elsewhere), and the Mammonite egoism towards his neighbour. A ‘perfect Christian' is anti-Zionist, for actual historical Jews are his dear potential brothers-in-Christ, who should be enlightened, not isolated and locked far away. (That is why racist antisemites are not ‘perfect Christians') A ‘perfect Christian' is anti-Mammonite, for he treats everybody as his neighbour. (That is why neo-liberals are not ‘perfect Christians'). In America, with its predominance of Jews in discourse, ‘perfectly Christian' ideas are blocked and do not enter the discourse, while ‘partly-Jewish' ideas pass through the sieve of the Jewish editors and professors. Thus, the ideas of von Hayek, Popper and Soros that conform to the outwardly Jewish paradigm are amplified and made central. Its American counterpart is Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, an American best-selling (voluminous novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) guru writer, and its religious offshoot, Californian Satanism as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, nee Levy, a Zionist-turned-Satanist.[16] Their sites are full of praise of Israel and Zionism, and, yes, of Satan. Among their adepts was President Ronald Reagan, for this form of Satanism is the religion of Neo-Liberalism: get what you can, do not care for the ‘other'; the Chosen are those that ‘have', while the have-nots are damned sinners. It explains the Americans' fear to be a ‘loser', for a loser is a sinner in the world of predestination. Thus the Jewish sieve in the media ushers in openly satanic themes. The following excerpt illuminates the point: Madonna's manager, who was thinking of signing up Manson, called Manson's manager to inquire about whether the rocker had a swastika among his many tattoos. 'Of course not,' said Manson's manager. 'One of the guys in the band is Jewish.' 'Oh, OK,' said Madonna's manager. 'We don't have a problem with Satanism, but we can't deal with any kind of Nazism.'"[17] "Now he insinuates that Jews have demonic nature!" - fumes my Jewish reader. Well, demonic as in ‘Maxwell demon'[18]. The Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell built a thermodynamic model of a box with a tiny door operated by a demon. The demon lets in fast molecules and lets out slow molecules. Thus the box can be heated to any temperature even in coldest atmosphere. In a similar way, Jews let into discourse ‘good for Jews' items and try to block the ‘bad for Jews' items. "It is done by all communities", - rejects my reader. Not really. A writer may depict a bad Englishman or American, Arab (any day!) or Muslim, and he will never receive a single letter of objection. A writer may present a homosexual priest, and he will never receive a letter saying ‘Not every priest is homosexual' or demanding to ‘offset the bias' by showing a saintly priest. But every negative depiction of a Jew will run into a Maxwell demon. Dickens portrayed Fagin, the repulsive gang operator, in his Oliver Twist, and came under barrage with letters and questions of the sort "not every Jew is a Fagin". Dickens never claimed it, but he was forced to apologise to Jews at every lecture he made in America. It taught him a lesson, and he refrained from showing Jews of less than saintly qualities. Since then, a rare author dares to introduce a negative Jewish character in his book. Le Carre managed to write a book, Single and Single, about dismantling of the Soviet Union and mass theft of Russian communal property without a single Jew in it. This is like describing Mafia without mentioning Italians. Alexander Solzhenitsyn encountered this problem,[19] as in his books there are complex Jewish figures. They are KGB officers, informers, top of prison administration. None is demonised, but none is made a saint, either. He was immediately attacked and offered a way out: to introduce a main character, a ‘noble strong and daring Jew'. He ignored the advice. Thus the world we live in was created. Like the box managed by the Maxwell demon, it is ‘overheated', for the critique of Jews is removed. There are bad guys of all persuasions in the fiction and in the media, but hardly any Jews. "Jews are like everybody else", my good Jewish friends would say often. But in the mirror of the discourse, the Jews are usually saints or martyrs. In order to normalise the discourse, to save Palestine and the Middle East, to save the remnants of Christianity in the West, the Maxwell Demon should be removed. The Jews in the media are unable to permit critique of Jews, be it of the media lords or of Israel, or of the evil neo-cons. The sieve they form is about to cause the ‘framing' of Christ and Christians for Zionists' crimes. Sacked Baghdad is still reeling after the strike, and already the left-wing Zionist Saul Landau has published an article[20] subtitled "Shop, Go to Church, Support Bush's War". Thus the most anti-Christian regime of Bush and Wolfowitz is mis-presented as a manifestation of Christianity. Jeffrey Blankfort (a strong and principled anti-Zionist voice, and good proof that a descendent of Jews does not have to adhere to the Jewish paradigm) noted: "Landau mentions not a word about the role of the Jewish neo-cons or Israel's urging of the US to pursue the war on Iraq, pushing the onus on to the Born-Again Christians".[21] This brings us back, to the Fifth Element of Luc Besson, for in the movie as in real life, Zog is not an independent force. A slave of Mammon, a servant of the Shadow, he is helping the Dark force fulfil its metaphysical task, to blot out the Light of Christ and to turn our world into Godless desert. That is why he sends bulldozers to wipe out flowers in Palestine, sends troops to sack Baghdad and Damascus, threatens Paris and Moscow, perverts Christianity. Is there a remote chance to save the world from the Shadow? One feels that the rule of King Zog is as secure in Washington as it was in pre-war Albania, as secure as the rule of King Macbeth in his Scotland, for no ordinary man can defeat him. But on Palm Sunday I walked down the Mount of Olives from Bethpage, where Our Lord (not an ordinary man) mounted the donkey, to the Lions' Gate of Jerusalem, in the midst of a huge procession of all denominations, for miraculously, the great Churches of the East and the West decided to celebrate Easter in Palestine together. This had an all-important message, for the Orthodox Church puts emphasis on Christ the God, while the Latin Church emphasizes Christ the Man, as our Muslim brothers praise the Holy Spirit of God, and all of us are united in love for the beautiful Land of Palestine and Her Lady. So we walked, city folk of Jerusalem and Nazareth, Bethlehem and Jaffa, peasants from Taybeh and Abboud, and nuns and monks and priests, waving palm branches and calling Hosanna, and it looked like Birnham Wood coming to Dunsinane… FOOTNOTES Michael Lind: New Statesman, April 7, 2003 http://www.yellowtimes.org/print.php?sid55 February 21, 2003 Executive Intelligence Review Jerusalem Post, 'No place in new Iraq for Palestinians' By Douglas David Apr. 10, 2003 clay, homer was the term Zionists used to describe Jewish Arabs during the 1950s. The same word, homer, is used in Hebrew liturgy at describing creation of Man "Occupied Territory" - Congress, the Israel Lobby and Jewish Responsibility

by Jeffrey Blankfort, City Lights Review, "War after War", 1992, City Lights Books http://laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/assmeta.php http://www.yellowtimes.org/print.php?sid=1155 Jewish dietary law The Nation -- Issue of April 21, 2003 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=alterman quoted by Bar Zohar, in his biography of Ben Gurion. See his works at www.arctogaia.com Why Most Christian Evangelicals Favor War by C. E. Carlson www.whtt.org/articles/02080.htm http://virginiawater.org.uk/christchurch Rf Lev Gumilev, Russia and the Great Steppe For instance, http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/satan/cos/ayn_rand.txt Leah Garchik, "Oh, the romance of it," San Francisco Chronicle, November 7, 2002 hypothetical intelligent being (or a functionally equivalent device) capable of detecting and reacting to the motions of individual molecules. It was imagined by James Clerk Maxwell in 1871, to illustrate the possibility of violating the second law of thermodynamics. Essentially, this law states that heat does not naturally flow from a cool body to a warmer; work must be expended to make it do so. Maxwell envisioned two vessels containing gas at equal temperatures and joined by a small hole. The hole could be opened or closed at will by "a being" to allow individual molecules of gas to pass through. By passing only fast-moving molecules from vessel A to vessel B and only slow-moving ones from B to A, the demon would bring about an effective flow from A to B of molecular kinetic energy. This excess energy in B would be usable to perform work (e.g., by generating steam), and the system could be a working perpetual motion machine. By allowing all molecules to pass only from A to B, an even more readily useful difference in pressure would be created between the two vessels. About 1950 the French physicist Léon Brillouin exorcised the demon by demonstrating that the decrease in entropy resulting from the demon's actions would be exceeded by the increase in entropy in choosing between the fast and slow molecules. (EB) based on his Jews in Russia and USSR, 1967, published 2001. ‘The Last Days of Born-Again History’ on CounterPunch site Blankfort also mentions: "Israel has always been Landau's weak point as it has to most, but happily not all, Jewish leftists. Twenty years ago he wrote that the two old Palestinian women who were shown (in a documentary) crying for their destroyed homes and the killing of their loved ones in Gaza did not seem genuine. I wonder what he would say if someone wrote that about Jewish survivors of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust?"