It has always been part of Gentile understanding that most Jews don't like Christianity and find that religion disturbing and upsetting to their psychic equilibrium.
A fairly recent example of this odd dislike was the Polish "crosses stand-off" at Auschwitz where Jews objected to the Christian symbol at what they consider their "Holy of Holies", even though it is on Christian soil.
An even more recent one was the widely seen Judeo-Christian Square-off on Larry King Live just a few days ago where, in response to a "Jew for Jesus" and a Southern Baptist duo, trying to defend their proselytizing ways to two angry and resistant rabbis, a much exasperated Larry King put on the brakes - and I quote here from memory:
"Look, all this Christians wants is help you get to heaven! Why hang the Holocaust around his neck?"
Another is described vividly in Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky's "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, 1999, pp. 154-155:
In dealing with political factors in our book, we did not specify many of the often petty forms of hatred of Christianity that are officially approved. One case in point is that Israeli educational authorities removed the international plus sign from the textbooks of elementary arithmetic used in the first grades of Israeli schools.
Allegedly, this plus sign, which is a cross, could religiously corrupt little Jewish children. Instead of the offending cross, the authorities substituted a capital "T."
This substitution was made some years after Israel became a state; the influence of Jewish fundamentalism was responsible. If this substitution had been made by the Taliban in Afghanistan, by the Iranian regime or by China during the cultural revolution, it would probably have been discussed at length. In contrast, this easily discoverable fact has been omitted in English-language articles and books concerned with Israeli Jewish society and Judaism. This omission is but one piece of the existent evidence that most books of this genre are unreliable.
We see this hardening on Israeli's part, in other words, about keeping the cultures apart. Yet, on the other hand, in many quarters there's a softening and reconsidering about the very concept, "Holocaust" that helped create the apartheid state of Israel in the first place.
It would seem that some Jews are finally beginning to see the danger of this incessant Holocaust promotion. "Did Six Million Die for This?" asks Sam Schulman in an essay subtitled 'Holocaustology' May Create a New Form of Anti-Semitism."
Again, I intersperse the points being made with Zundelsite comments and reflections:
THE HOLOCAUST DOMINATED the moral imagination of the 20th century. Before the rise of Hitler, anti-Semitism was a parochial concern of the Jews; after the war it was everyone's concern, and everyone regarded it with horror. The cause of anti-Semitism is a mystery to most Jews and most Gentiles. One school of thought, wrongly, I believe, blames anti-Semitism on Christianity itself.
More correctly, blame it on Jewish behavior, for there were no Christians in Egypt or Persia when they turned on their Jews of the day. The Romans were not Christians when they began to be troubled by their Jewish populations in Palestine and later other parts of the empire.
Certainly many Christians have accused the Jews of denying that they have been superseded--to most the difference in doctrine is not enough to explain the virulence of anti-Semitism. Another kind of anti Semitism is more subtle and only a century or two old.
How about the great reformer and founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther's findings, about Jewish behavior and tactics approximately 500 years ago, condensed in his famous treatise, "The Jews and their Lies"?
Rebecca West described it in her travels through pre-World War II Yugoslavia: "Now I understand some other cause for anti-Semitism; many primitive peoples must (have) received their first indication of the toxic quality of thought from Jews. They know only the fortifying idea of religion; they see in Jews the effect of the tormenting and disintegrating ideas of skepticism." This feeling is shared by those who saw the Jews behind such forces as Bolshevism and "progressive" movements of all kinds: A supposed Jewish "weakness for communism" was observed by such genial anti-Semites as Greggor von Rezzori, villains like Hitler, and, in his interesting new book on the Vietnam War just published, by the well-liked young American liberal Michael Lind.
American readers should not forget Henry Ford's in-depth, global research study into Jewish behavior and ethnocentrism, published in the Dearborn Independent in 1920 and later in his famous, four-volume set, The International Jew.
But a new kind of anti-semitism may emerge in the 21st century, in reaction to the attempt to make "the Holocaust" central to our civilization. The explosion of "the joy of sex in the death camp" movies, the proliferation of Holocaust memorials and museums, the emergence of a new academic discipline detached from history called Holocaust and Genocide Studies --- all these threaten to undermine a proper understanding of the Nazi war against the Jews. More disturbingly, however, it is igniting resentment against what is seen as moral and political posturing on the part of some Jews.
Here is what Samuel Gringanz of the Jewish Social Studies journal had to say about this topic as far back as 1950:
"The hyperhistorical complex may be described as judeocentric, lococentric and egocentric. It concentrated historical relevance on Jewish problems of local events under the aspect of personal experience. This is the reason why most of the memoirs are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies."
In plainer words, baloney!
The National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., is the perfect example of what happens when the attempt to understand the Holocaust breaks free of the historical discipline and is raised in a hothouse of preening modish concern; when it becomes "Holocaustology."
As one American writer said: "The establishment of the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, at that location, built with tax payer's money, says far more about the power and influence of the Jewish lobby over the American political process than it says about the Holocaust. . . " or words to that effect. Read an excellent article titled "The Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum: A Costly and Dangerous Mistake" at www.lebensraum.org/english/basic_articles/costly.html
Now one of the most popular tourist destinations in town, the museum has become a political circus. The sacred mission of memorializing the victims and blaming their killers has been surrounded by an aura of careerism and self-importance. The Museum's "Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies" is staging a conference this week in Washington on the direction of Holocaust studies in the 21st century in which papers on historiography, art looting, and the various national varieties of extermination are joined by a paper on "careers for newly trained holocaust scholars." Its summary roundtable includes such scholars as John Roth, who was denied the chairmanship of the museum only when several op-ed pieces he had published came to light, in which (he had) compared Reagan to Hitler and the Israeli military operations in Lebanon to the Nazi death camps.
You wonder who kept that dirt file on Roth and used it so adroitly? The ADL? Did the Jewish establishment sink one of its own?
Another participant is Professor Atina Grossman, of Cooper Union, who gives talks comparing the sufferings of the German civilians in the aftermath of WWII to those of the inmates of the death camps. Before an audience of holocaust survivors she has lamented that while German civilians suffered a high incidence of infant mortality, the Jewish women who had survived the death camps were experiencing an abnormally high birth rate, even though they were unprepared for motherhood and domesticity and often quite neurotic.
3000 live babies were born in the maternity ward in Auschwitz during its existence without a single baby's death being recorded. See Dr. Faurisson's testimony during the Zundel Trial in 1988 in Barbara Kulaszka's book, "Did Six Million Really Die?" at www.lebensraum.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd30.faurisson.html
The Museum's former Director of Education, Joan Ringelheim, was exposed by Gabriel Schoenfeld, together with other feminist Holocaust scholars, in a brilliant article in Commentary (June 1998). She "has gone so far as to draw a connection between Nazi "sexism" and the, to her, age-old "exploitation" of Jewish women by . . . Jewish men. In this very link, indeed, Ringelheim has located a key to the puzzle of why "maelstrom" scholarship has allegedly erased the history of women in the Holocaust. After all, she writes, many people today simply find it "too difficult to contemplate the extent to which . . . the sexism of Nazi ideology and the sexism of the Jewish community met in a tragic and involuntary alliance."
There was a confluence of interests between the Zionist leadership and Germany's National Socialist government - but it was not about sexism. See Edwin Black's book "The Transfer Agreement" (now out of print...?) and Tom Segev's oft-quoted book, the Seventh Million, the latter still available for $20 from your venerable Zundelsite.
Tomorrow: Conclusion of the Schulman essay
Thought for the Day:
"That's all there is, there isn't any more!"
(Added, with the permission of author Thomas Raceward, as the curtain line of his play Sunday, starring Miss Barrymore)
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 2000 ZGrams