by

Eduard Prugovecki

Two recent published articles,^1,2  accessible via this website, describe the great influence which a think tank of neo-conservatives, by now commonly known in the press as “neo-cons,” exert on the US foreign policy. For example, the first of these articles, entitled The Shadow Men, reports: “Robert Kagan, a neo-conservative writer living in Brussels, says ‘One finds Britain's finest minds propounding … conspiracy theories concerning the ‘neo-conservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy. In Paris, all the talk is of oil and ‘imperialism’—and Jews.’ A member of the French parliament quoted his country's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, saying ‘the hawks in the US administration [are] in the hands of [Ariel] Sharon’—a comment seen in some circles as a coded message about undue pro-Israeli influence exercised by neo-cons, most of whom are Jewish, at the heart of the administration.”
     Later on, the same article qualifies the above statements by pointing out that “the neo-cons are part of a broader movement endorsed by the president, and espoused, to different degrees, by almost all the principals involved, from Vice-President Dick Cheney down (Colin Powell, the secretary of state, is a notable exception).”
    The second article, American Power, makes it totally evident that the present US policy of world domination––first enunciated online on June 3, 1997 in a “Statement of Principles” for the Project of the New American Century, or PNAC, and later elaborated in the September 2000 PNAC policy blueprint entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy Forces and Resources for a New Century³ ––largely favors the Zionist approach to Middle Eastern affairs, and that even “Christian Zionists” belonging to Fundamentalist Churches in the United States have “a real influence in shaping the views of the Republican Party toward Israel.” Thus, Zionism emerges as a force that shapes present-day US foreign policy.
    
AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO GREW UP with Jewish in-laws and friends, I was highly susceptible for a long time to Zionist claims, believing that Zionists spoke for all Jews, and that their cause was evidently right in view of the great suffering European Jews had endured during World War II. I still remember that, after first seeing the movie Exodus, I walked out of the movie theater, wondering how the world could have allowed things like that to happen to a people who had already suffered so much during World War II, and why the British and the Palestinians were denying the Jews their homeland, out of which they had been evicted by the Romans almost two thousand years ago.
    Another factor that predisposed me in favor of Zionism was that, since my mid-teens, my great hero has been Albert Einstein,⁴  and I knew early on that Einstein had become an ardent Zionist right after World War I. I also knew that he had been a pacifist and a socialist––two political stances of which I largely approved. Hence, by a kind of extrapolation, I concluded that Zionism was a good and humanitarian ideology.
    But in the late 1960s I acquired a new neighbor in the apartment complex where I was then staying in Toronto, and he was a medical doctor of Lebanese origin. He was the first Arab I ever set my eyes upon, and as we were discussing current political affairs, I gradually found out that the stories that I had been told about the moral and legal right of Jews to take over the land of Palestine from the Arabs might not have been the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
    My new neighbor made me aware that the Arabs were Semitic people, just as the Jews were, so that the term “anti-Semite” as applied exclusively to those who were anti-Jewish was actually a misnomer; that the Palestinians were the most culturally advanced amongst all the Arabs; that, just like the Jews who displaced them, they highly valued education; that they had made the Palestinian desert bloom long before the arrival of the Jewish settlers who had taken over their lands; and that the movie Exodus was shown on American movie and TV screens each time a threat to Zionist policies of domination over the Palestinians and acquisition of their lands loomed on the political horizon––in other words, that it was a one-sided film skillfully exploited for Zionist propaganda.
    Another critical factor at that time was that I came upon the following passage⁵ in the extensively researched biography Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald W. Clark: “‘I myself belong to no denomination and consider myself a faithful Jew,’ [Einstein wrote in a 1921 letter]. ‘In how far we Jews should consider ourselves as a race or a nation respectively, in how far we form a social community by tradition only, on this subject I had not arrived at a decisive judgment.’ … This lack of decision was shrewdly noted by [the Zionist agent] Blumenfeld, whose frank account shows clearly the skill with which he brought Einstein into the Zionist camp. He realized that for Einstein ‘Zionism and Palestine were only peripheral concerns’… Utilizing him for publicity purposes was thus a delicate matter and ‘was only successful if [Blumenfeld] was able to get under his skin in such a way that eventually [Einstein] believed that words had not been put into his mouth but had come forth from him spontaneously.’” (Italics added.)
    Given the very high regard in which I held Einstein not only as a scientist but also as a man, these were for me very revealing statements––especially the last passage, which I have set in italics. By continuing to read Clark’s excellent biography, I learned that although Einstein subsequently remained a Zionist for the rest of his life, “his belief [was] that a first priority should be agreement with the Arabs.”⁶ In fact, in a November 25, 1929 letter to the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann he wrote: “Should we [Jews] be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering, and deserve all that will come to us.”⁷
    Thus, I was eventually forced to admit to myself that I had been misled as much as Einstein had been by Zionist propaganda, and that the case of the Palestinians for justice and fair treatment was indeed very compelling.
     My new Lebanese neighbor eventually introduced me to an Arab-Jewish league, consisting of progressive Jews and Arabs who were trying to achieve a mutual understanding in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict––which at that time had already lasted for decades, and which persists to this very day, with dire consequences for the Palestinians and loss of many lives on both sides.
    Although I am not a political activist, after attending a couple of meetings of that ad hoc
    I decided that the most effective way I could be of help was to bring the goals of reconciliation of Jews and Palestinians to the attention of all my Jewish friends and colleagues at the University of Toronto, and hopefully convince them to join the league, so that they would in turn try to affect the way of thinking of their own Jewish friends, thus producing a kind of chain reaction that would eventually bring mutual understanding between the two sides. After all, there were progressive Jews in the league who were trying to do exactly that.
    In that very naive attempt I met with worse than dismal failure, since my efforts resulted only in my eventually being blacklisted by certain elements within the North American Jewish Establishment Arab-Jewish league, I knew that I had to do something more than just provide verbal sympathy.⁸  and eventually brought great harm to my academic and scientific career.⁹  In fact, when I approached some of my Jewish colleagues at the University of Toronto and explained the desirability of a peaceful and consensual solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I was immediately confronted with the issue of “anti-Semitism.”
    
THIS ISSUE HAS BECOME since World War II an emotionally highly charged one, due to incessant Zionist propaganda, largely based on the exploitation of the memories of the holocaust of European Jews during World War II. Hence, “anti-Semitism” has become unlike any other social attitude directed against a political, religious, racial, national or sexual group––such as it is the case with “anti-communism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Americanism,” “anti-Catholicism,” “anti-lesbianism,” etc. In a recent Amazon.com online review of the book Zionist Connection: What Price Peace by the anti-Zionist Jewish writer Alfred M. Lilienthal it is pointed out that “[t]he fear of being labeled ‘anti-Semite’ is the main weapon used by Zionists to silence their critics.” This carefully nurtured emotional connotation of the term “anti-Semitism” distinguishes it from terms describing the many socially harmful attitudes directed in North America against Hispanics (known also as “Latinos”), against African Americans (once addressed as “Negroes”), and against Native Americans (still called “Indians”). All this despite the fact that these three last racist attitudes have resulted in great suffering for members of these “minorities,” and in the almost complete extermination of the last “minority” (which once inhabited the entire North American continent), constituting in the number of murdered people and the number of destroyed nations and cultural heritages the greatest of all holocausts in the history of humankind.¹⁰
    In North America any explanation of the special status enjoyed by the term “anti-Semitism” that is provided by a Gentile scholar is bound to be dismissed by many Jews as being itself “anti-Semitic.” It is therefore advisable to turn to reputable Jewish scholars who have had the courage to confront the basic facts, and state them publicly.
    As a son of Holocaust survivors and a noted academic, Norman Finkelstein carries all the necessary credentials, although his courageous stand––which he shares with some other exceptional Jewish scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Alfred Lilienthal, etc.––has apparently earned him in Zionist and elitist Jewish circles the title of a “self-hating Jew.” Of course, if this peculiar attitude were carried to its logical conclusion by other nations and religious groups, any German critic of the “master race” aspirations of the Nazis would have to be labeled a “self-hating German,” any Catholic critic of the anti-abortion ideology of the Vatican would be declared a “self-hating Catholic,” and so on, and so on.
    One of the things that Finkelstein has done in his recent writings was to dispel the myth of the Jews being perpetual “victims.” In particular, he states the following: “As the anti-Semitic barriers quickly fell after World War II, Jews rose to prominence in the United States. According to Lipset and Raab, per capita Jewish income is almost double that of non-Jews; sixteen of the forty wealthiest Americans are Jews; 40 percent of American Nobel Prize winners in science and economics are Jewish, as are 20 percent of professors at major universities; and 40 percent of partners in leading law forms in New York and Washington. The list goes on [in the book Jews by Lipset and Raab]. Far from constituting an obstacle, Jewish identity has become a crown to that success.”¹¹
    The above statistics appear even more remarkable once it is realized that the Jews constitute only a bit more than 2% of the American population, so that, for example, Jews are represented amongst “professors at major universities” in a proportion that is ten times greater then their proportion in the general American population.
    The reasons for this unparalleled “success story” provided by some Jewish writers echoes the “master race” attitudes of their arch enemies, namely the Nazis. For example, Finkelstein points out the following disturbing attitude among some American Jews: “Who could any longer dispute that Jews are the ‘chosen’ people? In A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman––himself a born-again Jew––typically gushes: ‘Jews would have been less human had they eschewed any notion of superiority altogether,’ and ‘it is extraordinarily difficult for American Jews to expunge the sense of superiority altogether, however much they may try to suppress it.’ What an American Jewish child inherits, according to novelist Philip Roth, is ‘no body of law, no body of learning and no language, and finally, no Lord … but a kind of psychology; and the psychology can be translated in three words: ‘Jews are better’.’”¹²
    After having my own career as a scientist and academic severely affected by the tactics of this type of supremacist Jews, I eventually became curious about how widespread this self-aggrandizing phenomenon is amongst North American Jews. Hence, I searched the Internet under the topic “anti-Semitism” and its polar opposite “anti-Gentilism.”
    To my surprise, I found a great amount of evidence which, most regrettably, identifies a Jewish racism and anti-Gentilism reflected in supremacist attitudes as being a rather wide-spread phenomenon: in one publication after another certain Jewish American authors overtly claim that the Jews are “unique,” “distinct” and “superior,” and that anti-Semitism is not at all a natural reaction to such an incredibly racist and arrogant attitude, but that it is rather due exclusively¹³  to the vile nature of Gentiles. “It's always the Gentiles’ fault,” states Finkelstein at one point¹⁴  (italics as in the original) as if wondering at the chutzpah of the “Jewish elites” that he criticizes.
    A clear-cut example of this elitist Jewish presumption that “Jews are unique and distinct,” and therefore entitled to special privileges, unwittingly emerges from the following passage in the memoirs of the famous Russian physicist and dissenter Andrei Sakharov, which deals with his Jewish wife's experiences during their 1988 visit to Canada.
    Academician Sakharov writes that in answering a question about Jewish émigrés from the USSR, Mrs. Sakharov (known to the public as Elena “Lusia” Bonner) stated the following: “There's a tendency to regard all Jews leaving the USSR as political refugees. That isn’t right or fair. … People can have other, fully legitimate reasons to leave the USSR––a desire to live well, to realize their potential. But why do such [Jewish] people have a better right to call themselves political refugees and to get special privileges than refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, or Armenia?”¹⁵
    Sakharov then describes how, as a result of this statement, which dared to set Jewish émigrés on par with émigrés belonging to other ethnic groups, his Jewish wife “was accused of anti-Semitism and other mortal sins … [and] warned that outraged Jews would picket [her and his] appearances in Winnipeg.”¹⁶
    In the face of such incredibly chauvinistic Jewish arrogance, is it any wonder that many non-Jews react with disapproval? That most natural reaction is then self-servingly labeled by Zionists and by supremacist Jews as “anti-Semitism”!    
    
BUT WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE presented by representatives of the “Jewish elites” in favor of this alleged Jewish “uniqueness” and “superiority”?
    Norman F. Cantor, described by his publisher as an “eminent Jewish scholar, professor, and writer,” has the following to say in his 1995 book The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews: “The Jews, once emancipated and given opportunity for mobility, were genetically so superior that market capitalism could not accommodate some of this superior species.”¹⁷ Thus, according to Professor Cantor, the evidence of Jewish “uniqueness” and “superiority” is genetic: “The Jews are a superior people intellectually and as long as Jewish genes exist, the extraordinary impact Jews have had in the twentieth century will continue indefinitely.”¹⁸
    Does that sound familiar? I am sure that Hitler would have completely agreed with Cantor if the term “Jew” were replaced in the above quotations with the term “Aryan.”
    However, some of the Jewish reviewers of Cantor's book find these supremacist Jewish claims totally reasonable and acceptable. One of them even states on its Amazon.com website the following: “Th[is] book [by Cantor] is proudly Zionist, having many passages that make you feel very proud of being a Jew and of our value and achievement. … Instead of seeing us as a holy race set apart, Cantor has to ground his Zionism in the superiority of the Jewish race, using the fact of the superior Jewish Intelligence. This is clearly liberal Zionism and not orthodox.” (Italics added.)
    Thus, the main criticism raised against Cantor's “powerful and deeply learned voice” is that it is not sufficiently “orthodox,” since Cantor regards the Jews “merely” as being “genetically superior” to all non-Jews, but not as being also a “holy race.”
    Well, not even Hitler had gone as far as to assert that the Aryans were a “holy race.” But only one Amazon.com Jewish reviewer finds the advocated thesis of Jewish supremacy at all objectionable, as he states: “The only criticism I have of this important work is when [Cantor] uses the phrase ‘genetic intellectual superiority’ (p. 424) which I found disturbing in a work that includes a discussion of the holocaust.”
    So, there we have it: Jews are “genetically superior,” and therefore, by implication, deserve special consideration. Of course, this attitude lies at the bottom of not only how the Palestinians are being treated in the territories occupied by Israel, but also of how Gentiles like myself are treated in North America by supremacist Jews when they point out the injustices suffered by the Palestinians.
    I find the claims of genetic Jewish intellectual superiority as morally objectionable as I do find similar claims by Nazi scholars in favor of Aryan intellectual superiority, or those of white supremacists in USA, who assert the superiority of Caucasians over other races.
    In fact, the parallels between such claims were unwittingly underlined by the Jewish scholar Raphael Patai, who, according to an online review¹⁹  of his book The Jewish Mind, “[e]xamines the Jewish mind and personality through three millennia, looking at the ways six historical encounters between the Jews and other cultures have left their mark on Jewish consciousness. Explores Jewish intelligence and the phenomenology of special Jewish talents ...” In the course of this “exploration of Jewish intelligence” Patai tries to substantiate on genetic grounds his thesis of Jewish intellectual superiority over all non-Jews by quoting the race theory of a Nazi named Hans Günther. Thus, in the “survival of the fittest” scenario postulated by him natural selection has favored over many centuries only the smartest Jews,²⁰ and the allegedly self-evident Jewish superiority is a natural consequence of this “fact.”
    
IT IS INTERESTING TO POINT OUT that the conviction²¹ of the Puritan colonists of North America that they were “God’s Chosen People” and “superior” to all the Native North American nations has led during the nineteenth century to a policy of virtual extermination of the latter. For example, Stannard states on p. 120 of his American Holocaust: “[Thomas] Jefferson's writings on Indians are filled with the straightforward assertion that the natives are to be given a simple choice––to be ‘extirpate[d] from the earth’ or to remove themselves out of the American way. Had the same words been enunciated by a German leader in 1939, and directed at European Jews, they would be engraved in modern history.” Later, on p. 240 of the same book, while comparing the great South American liberator Simón Bolivar (who believed that the Native South Americans were the “legitimate owners” of the South American continent) with his North American counterpart Thomas Jefferson, Stannard writes: “Jefferson would later write of the remaining Indians in America that the government was obliged ‘now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.’”
    The nineteenth century genocidal policies initiated by Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and other highly respected US presidents were very successful––so much so that on p. 77 of vol. 12 of the 1967 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica it is stated: “[E]vents [in USA] gave currency to the concept of the Indian as ‘The Vanishing American.’ The decision of 1871 to discontinue treaty-making and the Allotment act of 1887 were both founded on the belief that the Indians would not survive.” Indeed, on p. 283 of James Wilson’s The Earth Shall Weep: A History of Native America, we find the following shocking but true statement: “In under four centuries, disease, warfare, hunger, massacre and despair had reduced [the Native North American] population from an estimated 7–10 million to less than 250,000.” Eventually, the Native Americans did survive as a race––but just barely, and for many of them their present status in the United States is still problematic.²²
    It is interesting to compare the earlier cited supremacist ideologies of some American Zionist and elitist Jewish writers with those of their Christian counterparts of a century earlier. Thus, on p. 235 of James Wilson’s above cited book we can read the following: “Charles Dawin’s The Origin of the Species, published a decade after the [1850s] Gold Rush [in California], gave scientific racism a new intellectual authority. Subtitled Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, it seemed to offer a purely biological explanation for the global ‘success’ of northern Europeans at the expense of other peoples. Where the seventeenth-century Puritans believed that God had chosen them to populate the New World, nineteenth-century Americans could now feel confident that nature had selected them for the same purpose. Within only a few years, references of Darwin and the theory of Evolution were commonplace in writing about Native Americans.”
    Thus, during the second half of the nineteenth century Protestant American supremacists had used the same arguments that the Nazi supremacists had used during the first half of the twentieth century, and that the Jewish supremacists have used during the second half of the same century, and are still using them: all of them justified their supremacist ideologies with assertions of “genetic superiority” of their own “species,” which they based on grotesque distortions of genetics and the theory of evolution.
    Hence, it is no accident that supremacist Protestant Americans and supremacist Jewish Americans are predominant in PNAC. The sorry present state of many Native Americans and many Palestinians should be a warning to us all as to the “practical” outcomes of such supremacist ideologies.
    The invasion of Iraq provides the paradigm of how the PNAC blueprint for the US world domination is going to be implemented in practice. Among other things, this blueprint also “[c]alls for the creation of ‘US Space Forces’, to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent ‘enemies’ using the Internet against the US.”²³ “How long will it be before those of us who oppose this quest for empire, become the ‘enemy’?” asks the writer of the article entitled Project For The New American Century: The Death Certificate For Our Republic.²³

EDUARD PRUGOVECKI is Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. His website there is: http://individual.utoronto.ca/prugovecki/.


NOTES:

  ¹ The Shadow Men, published online in the May 4th, 2003 issue of Economist.com.
  ² F. W. Engdahl, American Power: A great debate has just begun, in Studien von Zeitfragen 37 (2003).
  ³ Both these documents are accessible via links on this website.
  ⁴ In fact, as a scientist I have dedicated most of my research efforts to a program of consistent unification of Einstein's special and general relativity theories with quantum mechanics. A systematic survey of this program is presented in my monograph Principles of Quantum General Relativity (World Scientific, Singapore and London, 1995).
  ⁵ R. W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, The World Publishing Company, New York, 1971), p. 380.
  ⁶ Ibid., p. 397.
  ⁷ Ibid., p. 402.
  ⁸ J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1996).
  ⁹ The persecution of Toronto academics sympathetic to Palestinian suffering continues to the present day. According to an online publication of York University in Toronto, there is now “a controversial Web page that monitors the work of Middle East scholars in an effort to expose and denounce an underlying pro-Palestinian bias. Mr. Blincow said Campus Watch is ‘an attempt to control the political activities of academics,’ and thus a threat to academic freedom of speech. Critics at York University and elsewhere say the site, which is four months old, has exposed several academics to death threats and e-mail harassment, and intimidated others into silence.” (Cf. the website http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/479)
 ¹⁰ D. E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993).
  ¹¹ N. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (Verso Books, London and New York, 2000), pp. 32-33.
    ¹² Ibid., p. 33.
   ¹³ Ibid., pp. 47-55
  ¹⁴ Ibid., p. 61.
  ¹⁵ A. Sakharov, Moskow and Beyond: 1986 to 1989 (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1991), p. 104.
   ¹⁶ Ibid., p. 104.
   ¹⁷ N. F. Cantor, The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, New York, 1995), p. 277.
  ¹⁸ Ibid., p. 423.
  ¹⁹ Excerpts from this Book News review are provided on the Amazon.com website of Cantor’s The Sacred Chain.
  ²⁰ R. Patai, The Jewish Mind (Charles Scribner& Sons, New York 1977), pp. 304-305.
 ²¹ J. Wilson, The Earth Shall Weep: A History of Native America (Grove Press, New York, 1998), p. 92.
  ²² Ibid., Chapter 12 and Epilogue.
 ²³ M. Gaddy, Project For The New American Century: The Death Certificate For Our Republic, in the March 2, 2003 issue of Sierra Times, www.sierratimes.com/gaddy.htm.